MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Angiogenic gene therapy for refractory angina: results of the epicardial delivery of XC001 gene therapy for refractory angina coronary treatment (EXACT) phase 2 trial

2023· article· en· W4388595832 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Thomas J. Povsic, Kenta Nakamura, Timothy D. Henry, Jay H. Traverse, R. David Anderson, Faisal G. Bakaeen, David A. Latter, E. Magnus Ohman, Michael W. Peterson, D. J. Byrnes, Carl J. Pepine, Ronald G. Crystal, Todd K. Rosengart, Nahush A. Mokadam, Howard C. Dittrich

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersCanadian Cardiovascular Society
KeywordsMedicineCanadian Cardiovascular SocietyTolerabilityAdverse effectAnginaInternal medicineCardiologyRevascularizationUnstable anginaSurgeryMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Refractory or "no option" angina (RA) is a debilitating condition with increasing global prevalence. Exogenous transduction of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) induces angiogenesis and improves perfusion of ischemic myocardium in preclinical studies. XC001 (AdVEGFXC1) is a novel adenoviral-5 vector expressing the three major isoforms of VEGF (-121, -165, -189) in ratios shown to enhance potency and improve safety. Purpose EXACT is a single-arm, multicenter, open-label, phase 2 trial to explore the safety, tolerability, and preliminary efficacy of trans-epicardial delivery of XC001 to improve exercise capacity and ischemic burden in RA patients. Methods Patients were required to have stable Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) class II-IV angina on maximally tolerated medical therapy with exercise limited by angina after 90 but before 540 seconds on a modified Bruce protocol, demonstrable ischemia on stress positron emission tomography (PET) and lack revascularization options. XC001 (1x1011 viral particles) was injected directly into ischemic myocardium via surgical transthoracic epicardial access. The primary outcome was safety by adverse event monitoring. Efficacy assessments included difference from baseline to six months in total exercise time (TET), myocardial ischemia by PET, angina class, angina frequency, and quality of life. Results Thirty-two patients (mean/median ages of 64/64, 34% female) were enrolled at 13 sites between March 2021 and July 2022. Median anti-anginal use was 3, 75% had prior revascularization with CABG and 88% with PCI. Fifty-five serious adverse events (SAEs) were observed in 21 patients (66%). None were attributed to study drug. Twenty-one SAEs in 14 patients were related to the surgical procedure, all of which were expected. One non-CV death occurred in month 3 following respiratory infection (Covid) deemed unrelated to surgery or study drug. Compared to baseline, total exercise time at 6-months increased by 85.5 seconds (95% CI 31.3-139.7) [Figure 1A] while total myocardial ischemic deficit in the treated region on PET decreased by 14.4% (95% CI, 3.01–25.73) [Figure 1B]. Angina frequency and nitroglycerin use measured during a two-week diary decreased by 6.6 episodes (95% CI, 3.5–9.7) and 4.1 doses (95% CI, 1.3–6.9), respectively. Canadian Cardiovascular Society angina grade decreased from 3.1 to 1.8, mean difference 1.3 classes (95% CI, 1.0–1.6) [Figure 2] while Seattle Angina Questionnaire Frequency score improved from 41.3 to 67.4, mean difference of 26.1 (95% CI, 16.3–35.9). Conclusions VEGF gene therapy with XC001 administered via minimally invasive epicardial delivery appears safe and well tolerated. Improvements in objective and subjective measures including total exercise time, myocardial perfusion, angina frequency and quality of life support a clinically meaningful biologic effect. This therapy warrants study in larger randomized studies.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.091
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics→French-language works237,207→